Date: 1917-01

294
LENIN MISCELLANY

Regarding Engels' preface to "Class Struggles in France," Kautsky wrote in *Neue Zeit* (1909), XXVII, 2, pp. 114-6 ("The Characterless Engels")...— "in his (Engels') manuscript (Kautsky wrote earlier) the revolutionary standpoint was energetically emphasized, but the revolutionary passages were deleted in Berlin, if I am correctly informed by Comrade Richard Fischer"......

and *Neue Zeit* XVII, 2 (1898-9, № 28) in polemics with Bernstein

..."The German friends pressed him (Engels) to omit the conclusion, because it was too revolutionary" (Kautsky's italics)", (p. 47).

+ *Neue Zeit* XXVII, 1 (2. X. 1908) pp. 6-7, Engels' letters to Kautsky concerning Engels' preface to "Class Struggles."

cf. also (in more detail; with citations from Engels' letters to Kautsky) in "The Road to Power."

* MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE."

"Der Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich" (Leipzig 1876). Dated 30. V. 1871 (cf. here, p. 2, in the middle)** — the entire Chapter III, or nearly all of it, is devoted to the question of the state, explaining that the working class cannot "simply" seize the "ready-made state machine" (see above, p. 1).***

---

MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE"

Regarding Engels' preface to "Class Struggles in France," Kautsky wrote in *Neue Zeit* (1909), XXVII, 2, p. 114-6 ("Characterless Engels")...— "in his (Engels') manuscript (Kautsky wrote earlier) the revolutionary standpoint was energetically emphasized, but the revolutionary passages were deleted in Berlin, if I am correctly informed by Comrade Richard Fischer"......

and *Neue Zeit* XVII, 2 (1898-9, № 28) in polemics with Bernstein

..."The German friends pressed him (Engels) to omit the conclusion, as too revolutionary" (Kautsky's italics)", (p. 47).

+ *Neue Zeit* XXVII, 1 (2. X. 1908) pp. 6-7, letters of Engels to Kautsky concerning Engels' preface to "Class Struggles."

N.B

N.B

cf. also (in more detail; with citations from Engels' letters to Kautsky) in "The Road to Power."

* MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE."

"The Civil War in France" (Leipzig 1876). Dated 30. V. 1871 (cf. here, p. 2, in the middle)* — the entire Chapter III, or nearly the whole of it, is devoted to the question of the state, an explanation of how the working class cannot "simply" seize the "ready-made state machine" (see above, p. 1).**

organs of 
"state 
power"

N.B

..."The centralized state power, with its omnipresent organs — standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, judiciary" —[23] (originated in the Middle Ages and developed further in the 19th century...). With the development of class antagonism between capital and labor, "state power increasingly assumed the character of public power for the suppression of labor, a machine of class rule. After each revolution, marking a step forward in the class struggle, the purely suppressive character of state power emerges more and more openly".. [24]

(Further this is examined in detail: the revolution of 1830, 1848, etc., the Second Empire.) Among other things (after 1848/9):

..."State power" = "the national instrument of war of capital against labor" ...))[24]

..."The direct opposite of the Empire was the Commune." "The Commune was the definite form of this republic" (namely "a republic that was not merely to suppress the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself"). [26]

"The Civil War," 1876 edition, especially N.B.:

p. 28, line 2 from bottom — ("breaks")
" " " 18 from top — ("cut off")
" " " 13 from top — ("destruction")

p. 29: the state = "a parasitic growth"

Thus, the Commune = "the definite form" of a proletarian socialist republic.

...The centralized state power with its omnipresent organs: standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, judiciary — (originated in the Middle Ages and developed further in the 19th century...). With the development of class antagonism between capital and labor, "state power took on ever more and more the character of public power for the suppression of labor, the character of a machine of class rule. After each revolution, marking a certain step forward in the class struggle, the purely suppressive character of state power stepped forth more and more openly".. [397]

(Further this is examined in detail: the revolution of 1830, 1848, etc., the Second Empire.) Among other things (after 1848/9): ..."State power" = "the national instrument of war of capital against labor" ...))

..."The direct opposite of the Empire was the Commune." "The Commune was the definite form of this republic" (namely "such a republic as was to eliminate not only the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself")*

"The Civil War," 1876 edition, especially N.B.:

p. 28, line 2 from bottom — ("breaks")
" " " 18 from top — ("cuts off")
" " " 13 from top — ("destruction")

p. 29: the state = "a parasitic growth"*

Thus, the Commune = "the definite form" of a proletarian socialist republic.

organs of 
"state 
power"

---

abolition of 
standing 
army

democratically 
elected 
parliamentary 
institution

responsibility 
and 
removability 
at any 
time

What exactly did this manifest as? What exactly is this "definite form"?*

((1)) "The first decree of the Commune was therefore the suppression of the standing army and its replacement by the armed people".............[26]***

((2))....."The Commune was formed from the city councillors elected by universal suffrage in the various districts of Paris. They were responsible and removable at any time.** Their majority consisted naturally of workers or acknowledged representatives of the working class"................

In 1876 they wrote Commune
In 1891
Commune

"not parliamentary, 
but 
working": 
legislative and 
executive 
power

police 
deprived of 
political 
functions and 
transformed 
into removable 
executors

all 
officials

((3)).........."The Commune was to be not a parliamentary, but a working body, at once legislative and executive"...

((4))... "The police, hitherto the instrument of government, was at once stripped of all its political attributes and transformed into the responsible, and at all times removable, instrument of the Commune."...

((5)) ... "The same with the officials of all the other administrative departments"...

What exactly did this manifest as? What exactly is this "definite form"?

((1)) "The first decree of the Commune was therefore the destruction of the standing army and its replacement by the armed people"...... [397]

((2 ))......."The Commune was formed from city councillors elected by universal suffrage in the various districts of Paris. They were responsible and removable at any time. The majority of them naturally consisted of workers or acknowledged representatives of the working class"..............[397]

In 1876 they wrote Commune
In 1891
" 
Commune

((3)) .........."The Commune was to be not a parliamentary, but a working body, legislative and executive at one and the same time." .. [400]

((4)) ... "The police, hitherto the instrument of state government, was immediately deprived of all its political functions and transformed into an organ of the Commune, responsible and removable at any time." ... [397]

((5)) ... "The same — the officials of all other branches of administration"....

abolition of 
standing 
army

democratically 
elected 
institution

responsibility 
and 
removability 
at any 
time

"not parliamentary, 
but 
working": 
legislative and 
executive 
power

police 
deprived of 
political 
functions and 
transformed 
into removable 
executors

the same 
all 
officials

---

"ordinary 
workers' 
wages"

elimination 
of 
privileges 
of (aristocratic) 
high 
officials

"break" 
the power 
of priests

"national 
organization" 
by 
communes

"central 
government" 
from 
"communal," 
i.e., strictly 
responsible, 
officials

"communal 
structure" =
"destruction of that

((6)) ... "From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be performed for workers' wages."

((7)) ... "The acquired rights and the representation allowances of the high state dignitaries disappeared with these dignitaries themselves" (26-27)...

((8))... "The standing army and the police, the instruments of the material power of the old government, once removed, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual oppression, the power of the priests". .. (dissolved and expropriated churches).

((9))... "The judicial officials lost that semblance of independence" They "were henceforth to be elected publicly, responsible and removable" (27)...

((10)).... "In a brief sketch of the national organization which the Commune had no time to elaborate further, it is stated expressly that the Commune was to be the political form even of the smallest village"...

from the communes a "National delegation" would be elected in Paris (28) ...

((11))... "The few, but important, functions which would then still remain for a central government were not, as has been deliberately falsified, to be abolished, but to be transferred to communal, i.e., strictly responsible officials"...

((12))... "The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, organized by the Communal constitution;

MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE"

((6))... "Beginning from the members of the Commune, from top to bottom, the public service had to be performed for workers' wages." [397]

((7))... "All privileges and money allowances to high state officials disappeared with these officials themselves"... (26-27) [397]

((8)) ... "With the removal of the standing army and police, these instruments of the material power of the old government, the Commune immediately set about breaking the instrument of spiritual oppression, the power of priests". .. [397-8] (dissolution and expropriation of churches)

((9)) ... "The judicial officials lost their apparent independence" They "were henceforth to be elected publicly, responsible and removable" (27)... [398]

((10)) ... "In the brief sketch of national organization which the Commune had no time to develop further, it is stated quite definitely that the Commune was to be the political form even of the smallest village"... from the communes a "national delegation" would be elected in Paris (28)... [404]

((11)) ... "The few, but very important functions which would then still remain for the central government were not to be abolished — such an assertion was a conscious forgery — but were to be transferred to communal, i.e., strictly responsible, officials"... [404]

((12)) ..."The unity of the nation was not subject to destruction, but, on the contrary, was to be organized by means of the communal structure. The

"ordinary 
workers' 
wages"

elimination 
of 
privileges 
(aristocratic) 
high 
officials

"break" 
the power 
of priests

"national 
organization" 
by 
communes

"central 
government" 
from "communal," 
i.e., strictly 
responsible, 
officials

"communal 
structure" =
"destruction of that

---

it was to become a reality by the destruction of that state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity but wanted to be independent of, and superior to, the nation, of whose body, however, it was merely a parasitic growth. While the merely suppressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority claiming to stand above society and transferred to the responsible agents of society." (28)...

and not the old parliamentarism, but "the people, constituting itself by communes"

((13))... "Instead of deciding once every three or six years which member of the ruling class should misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, overseers and book-keepers for his business." 

"a new historical creation"

"this new Commune, breaking the modern state power"...

((14))... "It is a common feature of all revolutions that the new social creation which they bring forth encounters older, and even moribund, forms of social existence, and is viewed as if it were merely a resuscitation of these older forms.... Thus this new Commune, which breaks the modern state power, has been viewed as a resuscitation of the medieval communes, as a federation of small states (Montesquieu, the Girondists)... as an exaggerated form of the old struggle against over-centralization"... [28-29]

* See this collection, p. 308. Ed.

MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE"

unity of the nation was to become a reality through the destruction of that state power which claimed to be the embodiment of this unity, but wanted to be independent of the nation and superior to it, though in fact it was merely a parasitic growth on the body of the nation. While the purely suppressive organs of the old governmental power were to be cut off, their legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority that claimed to stand above society and transferred to the responsible servants of society." (28)... [404]

((13)) ...(Instead of one time in three or six years deciding which member of the ruling class should represent and suppress the people in Parliament, instead universal suffrage was to serve the people organized in communes, so as to find for its enterprises workers, foremen, accountants, as individual suffrage serves for this purpose every other employer.) [400]

((14))... "The usual fate of new historical creations is to be regarded as a likeness of older, even superseded, forms of social life, to which the new institutions bear some resemblance. Thus this new Commune, which breaks the modern state power, was regarded as a resurrection of the medieval commune... as a union of small states (Montesquieu, Girondists)... as an exaggerated form of the old struggle against excessive centralization"... [407]

state 
power," which 
was a 
parasitic 
growth

see p. 34 
here/ as 
Bernstein 
"approximated" 
this to 
Proudhon!

and not the old 
parliamentarism, 
but 
"the people, 
constituting 
itself by 
communes"

"a new 
historical 
creation"

"this new 
Commune, 
breaking 
the modern 
state 
power"...

---

it was to become a reality by the destruction of that state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity, but wanted to be independent and superior to the nation, although on the body of the nation it was merely a parasitic growth. While the merely suppressive organs of the old governmental power were to be cut off, their legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority claiming to stand above society and transferred to the responsible servants of society." (28)... [404]

((13)) ...((Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class the people should represent and suppress in parliament, instead universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, so as to find for its enterprises workers, foremen, bookkeepers, as individual suffrage serves for this purpose every other employer.)) [400]

((14))... "The usual fate of new historical creations is that they are taken for a likeness of older and even obsolete forms of social life to which the new institutions bear some resemblance. Thus this new Commune, which breaks the modern state power, was regarded as a resurrection of the medieval commune... as an alliance of small states (Montesquieu, Girondists)... as an exaggerated form of the old struggle against excessive centralization"... [407]

state 
power," 
which 
was a 
parasitic 
growth

see p. 34 
here/ as 
Bernstein 
"approximated" 
this to 
Proudhon!

and not the old 
parliamentarism, 
but 
"the people, 
constituting 
itself by 
communes"

"a new 
historical 
creation"

"this new 
Commune, 
breaking 
the modern 
state 
power"...

---

Marx on 
"parasitic 
growth" 
"the state": 
Sic!

"the state 
power now 
become 
superfluous"

N.B:
destroyed 
army and 
bureaucracy

Commune = 
government 
of the 
working 
class

((15)) ..."The Communal constitution would, on the contrary, have restored to the social body all the forces which the state parasitism, feeding on society and hampering its free movement, had hitherto absorbed. By this act alone it would have initiated the regeneration of France"...... 

((16))... "In reality... the Communal constitution would have brought the rural producers under the intellectual leadership of the chief towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the shape of the town workmen, the natural representatives of their interests. The very existence of the Commune carried with it, as a matter of course, local self-government, but no longer as a check upon the now superfluous state power." (29)

((17))... "The Commune made the watchword of all bourgeois revolutions — cheap government — a reality by suppressing the two greatest sources of expenditure: the army and officialdom." (30)

((18)) "The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected and the multiplicity of interests which found expression in it prove that it was a thoroughly flexible political form, whereas all previous forms of government had been essentially repressive. Its true secret was this: it was essentially a government of the working class (Marx's italics),

MARX: "THE CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE"

((15)) ..."The Communal organization would, on the contrary, have restored to the social body all those forces which this parasitic growth, the "state," which feeds on society and hinders its free movement, had hitherto consumed. By this act alone it would have initiated the regeneration of France"....... [407].

((16))... "In reality... the Communal organization would have brought the rural producers under the intellectual leadership of the chief towns of their district and secured to them there, in the shape of the urban workers, the natural representatives of their interests. — The very existence of the Commune carried with it, as a matter of self-evident fact, local self-government, but now no longer as a counterweight to state power, which is now made superfluous." (29) [407]

((17))..."The Commune made real the watchword of all bourgeois revolutions — cheap government — by eliminating the two greatest items of expenditure, the army and bureaucracy." (30) [399]

((18)) "The variety of interpretations which the Commune has been subjected to and the variety of interests which found expression in it prove that it was in the highest degree a flexible political form, whereas all previous forms of government had been essentially repressive. Its real secret was this: essentially it was a government of the working class (Marx's italics), the

Marx on 
"parasitic 
growth" 
"the state": 
Sic!

"the state 
power, which 
now becomes 
superfluous"

N.B:
destroyed 
army and 
bureaucracy

Commune = 
government 
of the 
working 
class

---

the result of the struggle of the producing class against the appropriating class, the finally discovered political form under which the economic emancipation of labor could be effected." (30).

((19))... "Without this last condition the Communal constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion"...

..."The Commune intended the expropriation of the expropriators" (31)...

The Commune saved Parisian petty bourgeoisie — it was right in declaring to the peasants that its victory was their sole salvation;... Three months of free intercourse of "communal Paris" with the provinces would have brought about "a general peasant uprising." The Commune was the true representative of "all the healthy elements of French society" (35)...

..."The measures of the Commune could only indicate the direction in which a government of the people by the people moves" (36) — the abolition of night work for bakers; — the prohibition of fines; — the transfer of empty factories to workers' co-operatives...

From this compilation of Marx's most important discussions of the Commune, it is clear that Marx emphatically stresses the necessity to "abolish" (the army and bureaucracy), to "destroy" that state power, to "break the modern state power," etc., to destroy, break, eliminate, what? not the state, but the "modern state power," the "ready-made state machine," bureaucracy and army in the first place. By calling the "state" a parasitic growth, Marx "almost" speaks of the destruction of the state. But of course the matter is not in the terminology, but in the substance.

(N. B.) Bernstein's Assessment:

Bernstein in "Preconditions," p. 134, cites these passages (Nos. 12, 13, and 15 of mine) from "Civil War" and declares: this "program," "in its political content, exhibits in all essential features the greatest similarity with the Federalism — of Proudhon. (Ha-ha!)

..."Despite all other differences between Marx and (!!)"the petty bourgeois" Proudhon, in these points the line of thought is as close as possible to each other." And further: the importance of "municipalities" grows, but: "it seems doubtful to me whether the first task of democracy should be such an abolition of modern states and such a complete transformation of their organization as Marx and Proudhon envision (the formation of a national assembly from delegates of provincial or district assemblies, which would in turn be composed of delegates from communes), so that the previous form of national representation would completely disappear" (136). One cannot, he says, without the control of central governments!!!

the result of the struggle of the producing class against the appropriating class, the finally discovered political form under which the economic liberation of labor could be accomplished." [407]

((19))... "Without this last condition the Communal organization would have been an impossibility and a deception"... [407]

... "The Commune intended the expropriation of the expropriators" (31)...

The Commune saved the Parisian petty bourgeoisie — it was right in declaring to the peasants that its victory was their only salvation;... — Three months of free intercourse of "communal Paris" with the provinces would have brought about "a general peasant uprising." The Commune was the true representative of "all the healthy elements of French society" (35)...

..."Its (the Commune's) particular measures could only indicate the direction in which a government of the people by the people itself moves" (36) — the abolition of night work for bakers; — the prohibition of fines; — the transfer of empty factories to workers' associations...

From this compilation of the most important of Marx's arguments about the Commune, it is clear that Marx emphasizes with all his might the necessity to "abolish" (the army and bureaucracy), "destroy" that state power, "break the modern state power," etc., destroy, break, eliminate, what? not the state, but the "modern state power," the "ready-made state machine," bureaucracy and army in the first place. By calling the "state" a parasitic growth, Marx "almost" speaks of the destruction of the state. But of course the matter is not in the terminology, but in the substance.

(N. B.) Bernstein's Assessment:

Bernstein in "Preconditions," p. 134, cites these passages (Nos. 12, 13, and 15 of mine) from "Civil War" and declares: this "program," "in its political substance, displays in all essential features the greatest similarity with the Federalism — of Proudhon. (Ha-ha!).

..."Despite all other differences between Marx and (!!)"the petty bourgeois" Proudhon, in these points the line of reasoning is as close as possible." And further: the significance of "municipalities" grows, but: "it seems doubtful to me whether the first task of democracy should be such an abolition of the modern state and such a complete transformation of its organization as Marx and Proudhon depict (the formation of the national assembly from delegates of provincial or district assemblies, which would in turn be composed of delegates from communes), so that the entire former form of national representation would disappear entirely" (136) [405]. One cannot, he says, without the control of central governments!!!

---

(I)

replacement of 
standing 
army by 
armed 
people

(II)

Roughly:
Marx's basic idea: the conquest of political power by the proletariat is not the seizure of the "ready-made" state machine, but (1) the "breaking," destruction of it and its replacement with a new one. But what new one?

Marx studies the experience of the Commune; he does not invent this "new" power, but studies how the revolutions themselves "discover" it ("finally discover," p. 49, ed. 3), how the working-class movement itself approaches this task, how practice begins to solve it.

..........(III) Destruction of bureaucracy, judges including: (a) drive out "the high state dignitaries," "high government officials; (b) reduce the rest to a purely executive role; (c) removability; (d) pay of an ordinary worker.

(IV) 
...........Replacement of parliamentary representation of the people ("not a parliamentary," p. 46, ed. 3)* with "communal" (the "communal organization") i.e., both legislative and executive at one time__
__ Local self-government without oversight and guardianship of the state from above...
.......Full democracy in general...

The condition of all this: the awakening (by revolutionary fire, revolutionary activity) of the laboring masses, the majority of the population, their active participation instead of officials in state affairs — proletarian leadership, organized, centralized proletarians must lead them.

(V)

(VI)

The condition of all this: the reduction of the working day to 8-6-4 hours;— the combination of productive labor of all with the participation of all in "state" administration.

The Russian Revolution approached this same method, on the one hand, more weakly (more timidly) approached it than the Paris Commune, but on the other hand, showed it more broadly — "soviets of workers' deputies," "railway deputies," "soldiers' and sailors' deputies," "peasants' deputies." This Nota bene.

Changes after 1871? All such or their general character, their sum is such that bureaucratism grew furiously everywhere (and in parliamentarism, within it, — and in local self-government — and in joint-stock companies — and in trusts, etc.), that's one thing. And two: the workers' "socialist" parties "grew into" 3/4 the same bureaucratism. The split between social-patriots and internationalists, between reformists and revolutionaries consequently has an even deeper significance: reformists and social-patriots "perfect" the bureaucratic-state machine (cf. Marx, p. 3 at bottom here);* while revolutionaries must "break" it, this "bureaucratic-military state machine," break it, replacing it with a "Commune," a new "semi-state."

Nota
bene

cf.: "Neue Zeit" XXX, 2 (1912), Kautsky's polemic with Pannekoek. Very important! Kautsky here = reformist (and scoundrel); Pannekoek is unclear, but seeks revolutionary tactics.

N. B. p. 723: especially § IV, 1: "The Destruction of the State"... cf. p. 723-5 and 732/

Perhaps one could briefly, drastically, express the whole matter thus: the replacement of the old ("ready-made") state machine and parliaments with soviets of workers' deputies and their authorized representatives. That's the essence!! And the non-working population? Whoever does not work shall not eat (let alone govern the state)!! (Opportunists will object, as Bernstein already objected in 1899, that this is "primitive democracy." On the basis of socialism "primitive" democracy will not be primitive!)

Does the use of the modern state power and parliaments remain or not? No, answer the anarchists.— Yes, in the old way, the same way, the path that led to the collapse of 1914, answer the opportunists direct and indirect (Kautskyites).

Yes, we answer, but not in the old way, only *à la Karl Liebknecht*, i.e. (a) for revolutionary action in the lead, not in the tail of the movement; — (b) for service to the mass revolutionary movement;— (c) under its control;— (d) in constant connection of legal work and illegal; — (e) in constant struggle to the end, to a split with opportunists and officials of the labor movement.